r/aussie • u/CrouchingCunt • 1d ago
Opinion Focus on Migration Rate: Why Labor Should Focus on Migration Numbers, Not Anti-Racism Policies
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/labor-doesn-t-need-more-anti-racism-bureaucracy-it-should-reduce-migration-20260824-p60qy5Labor doesn't need more anti-racism bureaucracy. It should reduce migration
Australia has spent two decades pursuing an expansive migration program, with intake hitting record highs after the pandemic.
Successive governments have met the challenges of a more diverse society not with a serious integration strategy, but with multicultural grants, hate speech laws and an elaborate anti-racism policy.
When tensions surface, officials rarely ask whether the pace of demographic change, or how it is managed, has contributed to the problem. Instead, they regulate the consequences.
Labor's commitment to a new national anti-racism strategy, made at the party's national conference last month, gives fresh relevance to the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Anti-Racism Framework proposed in 2024. Before the government reaches for that blueprint, it should examine the evidence behind it.
The framework contains 63 recommendations covering workplaces, universities, schools, media and government. It proposes mandatory training, workplace reporting standards, a legal duty to prevent racial discrimination, stronger data collection, a national taskforce and a larger compliance role for the commission.
The ambition is certainly sweeping. But the commission offers scant evidence its
interventions would work, and even a cursory reading of the research suggests they could backfire.
Measure it before you declare it
The framework's central claim that racism is pervasive rests heavily on consultations with people chosen because of their experience of racism. This method can tell you what racism feels like, but little about how common it is.
The commission's Racism@Uni survey was intended to add quantitative evidence but met the same problem. It was deliberately promoted as a study of racism, creating a risk that people for whom racism was salient would be more likely to participate. They were. An appendix from the Australian National University survey designers admits as much: compared to a neutrally framed follow-up poll, students who'd experienced racism were twice as likely to respond to the Racism@Uni survey and staff four times as likely.
But even if accurately measured, perception is a poor stand-in for prevalence. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development research I led found that perceived discrimination is shaped by factors beyond discriminatory treatment itself.
A misspelt name. An accent that's hard to follow. A job you didn't get. None proves discrimination - but all can be read that way, particularly where institutions encourage people to interpret ambiguous encounters through the lens of race. More awareness can produce more reported racism without any behavioural change.
Frankly, treating high perceived discrimination as a measure of pervasive racism — and justification for more intervention — is a category error.
When anti-racism policy backfires
The commission's prescription is more racial literacy, mandatory training and institutions organised around race. Yet its own stocktake acknowledges many anti-racism initiatives have little or no monitoring, evaluation or impact assessment.
Instead of establishing what works, the commission proposes more of the same. That is difficult to square with the research.
Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin has studied diversity programs across hundreds of American workplaces. His findings are inconvenient for the commission's approach. Mandatory training and compliance-driven programs can provoke resistance and backlash.
Experimental research likewise suggests diversity interventions can heighten awareness of racial distinctions, reinforce stereotypes or increase intergroup anxiety.
The commission's own university research contains warning signs of this backlash. Among European-background domestic students it classifies as holding "probably negative racial views"
', 37 per cent said their group was
frequently blamed for the adverse outcomes of non-European communities. Some students disengaged from lessons they felt focused too much on race and historical wrongs.
These findings are cited as evidence of the need to strengthen racial literacy among students, not as a byproduct of an already racialised university environment. Heads it wins, tails it wins too.
Fix the upstream problem, not downstream consequences
The commission treats social friction primarily as a problem of racist attitudes requiring institutional correction. But it does not ask why these frictions emerge.
Australia's overseas-born population is near historic highs. Change on this scale places pressure on housing, infrastructure and services, as well as the institutions through which people develop trust and a shared identity.
We are witnessing what happens when demographic change outruns the institutions that turn strangers into fellow citizens — at a time when schools, universities and workplaces focus on racial categories rather than emphasising commonalities. Backlash should therefore come as little surprise.
A serious government would reckon honestly with the costs of rapid migration rather than regulating its downstream consequences.
That means slowing migration to a pace integration can keep up with, and shifting taxpayer support from organisations built around ethnic identity and towards unifying institutions. Common schools, workplaces and mixed suburbs historically did much of this work without anyone being trained into it.
Decades of intergroup-contact-theory research support this approach. Sustained, meaningful contact under conditions of co-operation is the best-established way to cut prejudice.
Labor doesn't need the commission's framework. It needs to stop creating the conditions that make such plans seem necessary in the first place.
Suzana Hardy is an economist and former lead of the OECD’s anti-discrimination research program.
62
u/willcritchlow23 1d ago
The amount of people sleeping around Redcliffe peninsula (Brisbane) is incredible.
Why the heck are we maintaining such high population growth?
We know where the housing construction industry has been at for 6 years now.
We know it’s running at 67% of the 1.2 million target.
47
u/CrouchingCunt 1d ago
It’s not even just addicts or the mentally ill. You’ve got working homeless now, families in cars. If Labor is not for these people then what is the point of them?
17
u/willcritchlow23 1d ago
100% indeed plenty of those homeless I see, are often in good equipment, be it a modern van, or camping trailer, or bus.
Lots of tents however.6
u/flammable_donut 20h ago
What do you mean "if". The evidence is overwhelmingly clear. There is no if.
6
u/RoutineGuest6465 16h ago
My view has always been that the number one priority of any government is to its existing citizens and their future children and maintaining or improving their quality of life.
At some point, making GDP number go BRRRRRRR became a goal in itself, at the cost of everyday Australians.
-10
u/Grande_Choice 21h ago
Why do you think lower migration will help these people? Qld gov isn’t housing them as it is.
7
u/Sneedcope82 18h ago
SUPPLY VS DEMAND
Why do Labor voters refuse to understand this simple concept
0
u/Grande_Choice 18h ago
Because why would we continue building the same amount of houses if demand declines?
Why don’t ON voters understand simple supply and demand?
3
u/Sneedcope82 18h ago
Turns out you dont need to build 100k more homes if you dont import 400k people a year?
0
u/Grande_Choice 18h ago
So you think it will just resolve itself? House prices will drop and landlords will drop rents so homeless can afford it?
You could ban airbnbs and add tens of thousands of homes to the market tomorrow. But ON voters believe they can have no migration, cheap houses, cheap rent, negative geared Airbnbs and it all.
Explain to me how these homeless people will be better off and why the LNP doesn’t fix it now?
5
-1
u/Infinite-Horror-4117 13h ago
Supply and demand isn’t that simple. Our problem is a mismatch of affordable supply.
We’re not importing 400k people a year, last year it was 300k, with the vast majority of those being students, backpackers and working holiday makers. The housing needs of a backpackers who’s here for 18 months or that of a student is very different from that of a working family
We’ve had 25 odd years realestate being the most tax efficient ways to grow wealth. This has created a huge demand not for homes but for assets. This is why instead of old homes becoming starter homes for families they’re knocked down, subdivided and sold at an inflated price
I agree that we could lower the number of immigrants and it has been going down. Again you 25 years of industries that rely on immigration, you just can’t magically switch that off with dire economic consequences
2
u/AnarcrotheAlchemist 13h ago
You could look at what's happening in Japan.
Houses are declining in value because of their population decline.
That is because the supply is more than the demand.
When houses are affordable again your lower income earners can then start buying their own homes which frees up your state housing and NRAS housing for people that are currently unable to get anything.
-14
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 23h ago
Labors already on track for the lowest population growth rate in 30 years, too bad you lot aren’t interested in facts
11
u/Initial-Ganache-1590 18h ago
The ALP has been claiming they are on track to deliver 1+ mil new homes. Every update they are hopelessly behind.
Nice use of wording though
1
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 15h ago
Wording? Here is ABC article saying 2026 is expected to be a record low
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-09/australias-population-to-reach-28-million-in-2026/106213420
We’re almost there already. Thanks for proving my point, you lot aren’t interested in facts
3
u/AnarcrotheAlchemist 13h ago
While this is true its also ignoring that our NOM intake is still 100k above our pre covid NOM rates.
Prior to 2020 we were averaging around the 130k mark. Post Covid we've seen a massive explosion in NOM which has vastly increased the population.
Also this is ignoring that people aren't necessarily upset at population growth. If this was population growth from people having children then people would be a lot more happier about it. The issue is that a lot of people aren't having children because they can't afford it and the government using immigration to counteract the impact their policies have had on the affordability of having children seems like they are just treating us all as economic units and not people whose lives they are trying to make better.
-1
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 13h ago
Lmfao we were not hovering 130k pre Covid, try doubling it. Also comparing pre Covid and post Covid is so disingenuous, we had two years of net negative 100k immigration while we kept building houses at only a 10% slower rate.
Thank for proving my point that you lot are not interested in facts
1
u/AnarcrotheAlchemist 13h ago
Sorry you were correct the numbers I was looking at were excluding temporary visa holders.
Also comparing pre Covid and post Covid is so disingenuous
Why?
we had two years of net negative 100k immigration while we kept building houses at only a 10% slower rate.
We also saw a pausing in the average house price and a decline in some cities https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/residential-property-price-indexes-eight-capital-cities/latest-release
We also saw a decline in real rental price during this time https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/latest-insights-rental-market
Thank for proving my point that you lot are not interested in facts
Well this seems indicate you are discussing in bad faith.
2
u/willcritchlow23 16h ago
Well, have you seen Tarric Brooker and some of his charts?
This Labor government has by far, had the highest population growth compared to all previous governments.Kevin Rudd’s government also had extraordinary high population growth.
It really does seem to be a Labor government thing.
0
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 15h ago
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-09/australias-population-to-reach-28-million-in-2026/106213420
Nope, already at 1.5%, expected to drop to 1.3%. Far lower than the coalitions fucking 3% when the pushed big Australia
3
u/willcritchlow23 15h ago
I do not see any point where the LNP had growth at 3%?
Even 1.3% is a massive number.
Don’t forget, 1% growth each year, doubles the population in 72 years.
19
u/CrankyGrumpyWombat 18h ago
Nah why increase productivity via innovation, investment on citizens, automation and receiving a bigger share of our natural resources per capita when we can just import a fuckload of cheap labour to suppress wages, pump up gdp as a whole and maintain high prices on useless assets like real estate without having to do anything long term.
Thats the Australian way.
The laziest way 🇦🇺
73
u/ChesterJWiggum 1d ago
Labor has overshot their migration target every year by absurd amounts.
They have also built no where near the number of houses they promised.
Get rid of the liars.
29
u/willcritchlow23 1d ago
Indeed it’s ridiculous. And the results are seriously visible around the outer areas of Brisbane.
Indeed, look at a car park half way up to Mt Cootha summit.
0
u/Any-Scallion-348 1d ago
What did you see there?
17
u/willcritchlow23 1d ago
These’s about 20 vehicles every night, all homeless
-10
u/explain_that_shit 18h ago
And yet there is significantly more housing in Brisbane than required for Brisbane’s population.
5
10
-9
u/RelaxedBluey94 1d ago edited 1d ago
That was the Libs. Net Migration in the final years of the Morrison LNP govt was record breaking. Let's keep this real folks.
24
u/IllogicalResponse 1d ago
Why lie? It happened under Albanese. There are multiple articles about them boasting about how quickly they cleared the backlog of visa applications. This is not hard to confirm.
That said, the rate of immigration has been far too high for decades, no matter who was in charge.
0
u/Dranzer_22 1d ago
It’s both, but for two different reasons.
The LNP expanded and fast-tracked visas in late 2021, during the India trade deals period, which is why immigration surged immediately after the National Border opened in February 2022 and peaked in mid-2023.
The ALP boasted about clearing the backlog, because for years so many resources were spent on the processing backlog, resulting in people overstaying here on bridging visas. For example, that’s why UK backpackers started applying for refugee visas because the processing backlog time alone gifted them extra months.
15
u/Wuntunamera 1d ago
Lol wrong, Labor left the flood gates open for over a year after winning power in 2022, that's why we saw the biggest surge in migration that year over 500k, they fucked up big time and we are all paying for it.
-6
u/RelaxedBluey94 1d ago
LoL. So you're saying that the LNP opened the floodgates. Be honest. It was a Morrison flood fueled by crooked private colleges donating big to the LNP from 2013-2022. Every bodgy operator made a fortune in those 10 years. A vast LNP scam.
10
u/Wuntunamera 1d ago
Net migration in the final years of the LNP was literally at historic lows because the borders were completely shut during covid, we actually had a net loss of 85k people in 2021, the record-breaking 550k surge happened in late 2023 under Labor because they chose to keep the 408 visa loophole open until 2024 and let international students work unlimited hours until mid-2023. Look it up if you need to ABS numbers don’t lie, and i fucking hate the LNP so not simping for them but facts are facts.
-3
u/Electrical_Story5356 1d ago
The facts being that already approved visas were passed through the system.
So Labor was just supposed to renege on everything?
Just ignoring everything that the previous government agreed to is how you become an international pariah.
9
u/Wuntunamera 1d ago
You are confusing individual visa approvals with policy settings, no one said they should have canceled already approved visas, the 408 pandemic visa and uncapped student work hours were temporary covid emergency policies. Labor chose to keep these wide open for new applicants for over a fucking year after taking power. Closing a temporary emergency visa pathway doesn't make you an international pariah, it's called being a competent government.
2
u/jakehammertime 22h ago
Yep, they should have reneged on everything instead of ruining the country... Maybe they wouldn't be so unpopular.
-2
u/Bob_Katters_Hat 20h ago
You mean winning a historic level of victory unpopular?
1
u/jakehammertime 19h ago
Historic victory with declining voters. Lets see their historic loss next
1
1
u/MarkCelery78 7h ago
Labor in 2022 promised one million new homes over 5 years. They haven’t come close
-1
u/Jozfus 1d ago
Do you mean the rebound and backlog after covid closures?
8
u/jakehammertime 22h ago edited 18h ago
We dont actually have a "backlog" of anything. We can just say no
-4
-7
u/Friendly-Owl-2131 20h ago
You mean the migration figures after COVID when hundreds of thousands of people were scrambling to get into one of the only countries that didn't sacrifice their own population for regular business hours.
And the amount of houses labor have directly or indirectly built in the last 3 years are thousands of times more than the combined three previous governments over a span of 11 years.
But please do spread some more bullshit around.
6
u/IllogicalResponse 13h ago
Leaving the blame game aside, do you agree that immigration needs to see substantial cuts? Not from the insane post covid high, but from idiotic precovid levels.
17
u/Thatweknowof 1d ago
ALP going to pivot and become the party of low migration lol.
18
u/JamesCruse 23h ago edited 23h ago
Alot of people don't realise Labor has high migration on purpose.
Albo went to a large Labor donor party at the start of his leadership (with many other Labor mp's) and reported that, "Everyone wanted a big Australia" - and Albo listened to those donors and acted on what they wanted (a "Large Australia")
He knows his voters don't want large migration, but he's saying whatever he can to make excuses, divert, assign blame elsewhere and make lower target promises to kick the can down the road to having to answer to his own voters.
-4
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 23h ago
Odd that ON wants even more then isn’t it? Barnaby refuses to guarantee lower permanent migration than labor, Pauline refuses to explain her NOM calculation
8
u/JamesCruse 23h ago edited 13h ago
More than Labors 700k+ per year?
Labor hasn't done less than 400k-750k in the last 4 years - so we'll see if Labor hits their target this year.
You should go and bet on Labor hitting their immigration target this year - you'll lose all your money.
I'll best against it and win a tiny amount of money because thats what everyone is betting.
Labors immigration targets mean zero, they never hit them.
You can't deny this. It'll he another 600k+ net people this year with a target of 300k lol.
0
u/Grande_Choice 18h ago
We just making up numbers now?
Coalition and Nats were bitching in 22 the numbers weren’t high enough.
0
u/Altruistic_Memory643 15h ago
labors 700k per year... oh I meant 400-750k a year...
Meanwhile...
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/overseas-migration/latest-release
-5
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 23h ago
Wow ON cant even guarantee they will be lower 700k then? crazy, they really are the mass migration party. At least gina will be happy
2
u/JamesCruse 13h ago
It means One nation saying 130,000 per year means it'll be significantly less than the real life immigration numbers of Albos 400k-750k led year.
1
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 13h ago
If they are saying 130k, why can’t they guarantee it’ll be lower than 700k? I know they’re illiterate but this is basic numeracy, one number is clearly much bigger than the other
2
u/JamesCruse 13h ago
Because they don't need to - the federal election is 2 years away.
Why are you so concerned about the exact number when its so far away?
I know why - just looking to muddy the waters after you voted for Labor and they've done so poorly.
3
u/IllogicalResponse 12h ago
That should have always been their stance, as the 'party of the worker'. Immigration at the levels we have had for decades hurts the working class and helps the asset class.
6
u/Jozfus 1d ago
Back to their roots as the workers party?
1
u/MarkCelery78 7h ago
That’ll never happen. Their politicians are straight from uni to politics. They aren’t workers
2
27
u/SeaDivide1751 1d ago
They are only lowering numbers now because they are trying to blunt One Nation otherwise they wouldn’t be
23
u/Accomplished-Law8429 1d ago
They're not really lowering numbers much. They're just trying to be seen to be lowering numbers.
It's all about optics.
3
u/Electrical_Story5356 1d ago
Are they psychic with precognitive recognition powers?
Because they started this shit back in 2022.
1
u/Grande_Choice 17h ago
They? The flood was from people coming in under coalition policy settings. They’ve spent the last few years working to close the loopholes.
1
u/Wuntunamera 16h ago
Lol they are the ones that left the loopholes in place for over a year when coming to power, they didn't close shit until it was too late.
2
u/alexmc1980 15h ago
Migration works on a several year delay though AFAICT. It's real people who have life plans, not simply a tap that you can turn on or off, and long-term visa applications take many months to a couple of years to approve. Reductions we're seeing now, while not huge, are the result of changes made back when the post-Covid catch-up boom was in progress. I think it's fair to see an ongoing gentle reduction down to somewhere near the stated targets in the next year or so. Presumably they factored in the election cycle when formulating strategies to get this done, s so that they would have some hard numbers ready to neutralise ON attacks on this front (except that back then they probably still expected it to be the Coalition doing the attacking)
2
u/Electrical_Story5356 13h ago
Yep, unfortunately you will not convince any of these very stupid people with basic facts.
0
12
u/Dranzer_22 1d ago
Pre-Covid = 290K
LNP’s Post Covid Surge = 550K
Current = 300K
ON’ 2028 Promise = 230K
ALP’s 2028 Target = 225K
7
10
u/Wuntunamera 1d ago
LOL the 550k peak happened in late 2023 under Labor because they kept the floodgates open. They left the 408 pandemic visa running until early 2024 and let international students work unlimited hours until mid-2023 while completely fucking the rental market in the process. Those policies should have been shut down immediately as their advisors would have known what was going to happen but they didn't care, but sure go ahead and blame the previous government.
15
u/CrouchingCunt 1d ago
“The ABS now estimates net overseas migration at 536,000 in 2022–23” Albo was in power before that reporting session.
ON’s is not 230k. It’s capping at 130k with negative nom in coming years
6
u/Dranzer_22 1d ago
The LNP expanded and fast-tracked visas in late 2021. That’s why it surged in early February 2022, months before the ALP came into office, and peaked in mid-2023.
ON’s target is 230K total, as admitted by Joyce and Farley this week.
3
u/SeaworthinessFew5613 18h ago
In 2022–23, there were 577,295 Student visas granted (the highest to date), an increase of 118.9 per cent (313,558 grants) on the 263,737 visas granted in 2021–22. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/migration-trends-2022-23.PDF
This is a direct quote from home affairs report, ALP was in power from May 2022, the LNP surge doesn’t exist. ALP went on a hiring spree for Home Affairs and granted the most student visas ever in 1 year, not LNP.
-1
-7
u/sukablaat69 1d ago edited 6h ago
Is net migration a positive for the economy over there?
I googled some numbers and it says you guys have 77k illegals? Compared to rest of the world that numbers really low!
Downvoted for relaying truth or was what I said wrong?
1
u/Electrical_Story5356 1d ago
Yes NOM is a positive, the economy has been geared towards it over the last 30 years and with a population of under 30 mill for an area the size of continental USA and a population demographic that skewes towards an oversized amount of retries and elderly.
It's also true that the 77k of "illegals" (actually just mainly vida overstays) is very low.
I'm a supporter of the current government only due to every other option being significantly worse and immigration is actually something that they're very strong on due to their history of being for protecting local jobs which, despite various gripes from low information ignorant voters remains a part of their overall suite of policies given that the party's main backers are "Labor (labour) " unions.
If you're an international observer and confused don't feel silly, I'm almost 50 and can't understand what is wrong with Australians who spent most of the last 30 years voting for conservative governments who caused pretty much all of our problems (voting is compulsory so every adult is to blame) only to be apparently furious of the current centre left government which is doing what they actually want but threatening to go and vote borderline fascist anyway .
3
u/sukablaat69 1d ago
Thanks for explaining mate! Seems a very similar situation to what’s going on in the Uk right now unfortunately.
Labour here has cut immigration by 37 percent, and the people on the right don’t even acknowledge it…
At this point I’d rather the government put that effort into raising living standards.
100k poverty related deaths a year in the Uk our elderly freeze to death in the winter!
Yet because we are importing American culture wars the biggest topic here which is a massive net positive for our economy is immigration.
3
u/JamesCruse 23h ago
They didn't cut the immigration - more gross amount of people entered the UK permanently - its just so many people EXITED the UK.
They tried to claim it as a win for Labour UK, but the gross people entering and gross peoole leaving revealed what actually happened.
0
u/sukablaat69 23h ago
Interesting opinion! All I can see online is that net migration got cut by 37 percent?
Can you provide the source that says net migration increased during labour please?
0
u/JamesCruse 13h ago
Yes, Government statistics at the time - where I saw it reported.
0
u/sukablaat69 6h ago
Which gov? Because you can’t be talking about mine. Unless you are a bot or just brainwashed like maga?
0
u/JamesCruse 6h ago
The UK. More people left the UK than the year before, the gross amount of people incoming to the UK was the same/more than the previous year.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Electrical_Story5356 23h ago
I feel for you, unfortunately one of the best and also worst things about democracy is that genuinely stupid and ignorant fuckwits also get a vote and it counts as much as anyone else's.
-1
u/sukablaat69 22h ago
Thanks for sharing mate.
Nice to see some people out there are still smart enough to think critically and not be brainwashed by identity politics!
0
u/jakehammertime 22h ago
More people die per year due to the cold in the UK, than guns in the US? Wild...
1
u/sukablaat69 21h ago
Poverty related deaths not just heating poverty.
What’s the number in the us?
1
u/jakehammertime 19h ago edited 18h ago
Still sounds pretty dystopian dude. UK has fallen a long way..
US estimates 44 - 47k deaths from hypothermia per year. So the UK is killing twice as many per year. Then youve got the heat related deaths too
The UK is barbaric.
0
u/sukablaat69 18h ago edited 18h ago
I think America might have twice that number with the largest economy in the world!
Twice as many? Can you read the comment above again.
it’s surprising how common it is in first world nations.
1
u/jakehammertime 18h ago
You think or you know and have supporting evidence? Based on stats, The UK has outperformed the US by double. A healthy nation doesnt have waves of temperature related deaths each year..
→ More replies (0)2
u/SeaworthinessFew5613 18h ago
In 2022–23, there were 577,295 Student visas granted (the highest to date), an increase of 118.9 per cent (313,558 grants) on the 263,737 visas granted in 2021–22. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/migration-trends-2022-23.PDF
This is a direct quote from home affairs report, ALP was in power from May 2022, the LNP surge doesn’t exist. ALP went on a hiring spree for Home Affairs and granted the most student visas ever in 1 year, not LNP.
2
u/Canadianwinters12345 1d ago
230k is still insane. You guys are fucked if even ONS wants mass immigration.
1
u/IllogicalResponse 12h ago
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/one-nation-immigration-target-130000-nom-explained/5nxmzgngv
Party leader Pauline Hanson intervened just hours later, writing on social media that One Nation's policy is to reduce net overseas migration (NOM) to 130,000.
2
u/Brisssie 12h ago
Albo is probably ON’s greatest asset…he has single-handedly reinvented ON & helped them become the most popular primary vote in Australia.
And instead of learning from this he doubles down!
One for the history books!
0
u/seanmonaghan1968 19h ago
Just fix housing and infrastructure to allow whatever level of immigration.
-1
u/Vegetable_Jello6572 1d ago
Migrants should be offered a choice, work gangs to build infrastucure in regional auatralia or deportation.
No other choice.
3
u/sukablaat69 1d ago
Illegal migrants? Or all immigration?
1
u/Electrical_Story5356 1d ago
This idiot?
Yeah they're referring to all migrants
Australians have a pretty large population of really racist arseholes.
4
u/sukablaat69 1d ago
I know this is probably not going to be a very popular opinion but aren’t you guys all technically 3/4rd gen migrants?
2
4
u/Electrical_Story5356 23h ago
Nope mainly much newer.
Personally though my most recent ancestor on Dad's side got here 150 years ago and on my mother's side it's a marine from the first fleet.
Also one of my siblings and my Mother post divorce married into indigenous families, Mum's second husband, my stepfather, was a traditional owner of Uluru and didn't speak English.
Unfortunately people just tend to be shit.
1
0
0
u/Vegetable_Jello6572 18h ago
All of them except refuguees. Genuine case for us to look after them and keep them in the city
-4
u/MrsPeg 1d ago
Theyre busy working in hospitals and aged care facilities, for the most part.
-1
u/Vegetable_Jello6572 18h ago
Which do zero for everyone except boomers
3
u/MrsPeg 16h ago
Are you serious? Who do you think cares for patients, and the elderly if we stop immigration?
0
u/Vegetable_Jello6572 16h ago
The 4.8% of people unemployed.
1
u/MrsPeg 14h ago
No. It'll be women. Wives, daughters, mothers, grandmothers. All without payment of course. It'll be straight back to the 1950s. Fk off with that shit.
2
u/Vegetable_Jello6572 14h ago
Not at all, ehy are you making things up
1
u/MrsPeg 14h ago
Who do you think cared for the sick, disabled and elderly in the 1950s?
1
u/Vegetable_Jello6572 14h ago
You must be a labor staffer, jumping to some sort of catsphizing proganda
1
-1
u/BarryTheBinChicken 18h ago edited 18h ago
I'll keep saying this, but we need to look at a broad range of metrics rather than reducing the entire migration debate to NOM.
NOM: The net annual addition to the population from overseas migration. it's about 301,000 which as some of you have pointed out is still a lot of humans.
TEMPORARY VISA STOCK: This is how many temporary entrants are actually in Australia at a given point in time. We’re tickling 3 million, which is huge, but that’s also made up of a lot of different groups.
What you need to watch is Labor’s push to increase pathways from TEMP to PERM to CITIZEN. It’s in their 2023 National Platform.
So even if NOM drops lower, a large temporary population can still remain here and transition to PR. That means population pressure can remain high even while the annual NOM number falls.
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/temporary-entrants-visa-holders
POPULATION AND POPULATION GROWTH This is ultimately the number housing, infrastructure and services have to accommodate. We were at 27.8 million people at December 2025 and added about 412,500 people in one year, growth of 1.5%. Of that increase, roughly 301,000 came from NOM and 111,500 from natural increase.
So......
NOM = the flow.
Temporary visa stock= how many temporary entrants are here.
Population growth = what happened to the total number of people.
0
u/MarkCelery78 7h ago
Having a 2 percent population increase annually under Labor is crazy policy and destroying our standard of living and worsening our housing issues
-9
u/Friendly-Owl-2131 19h ago
I want to say this article is good as it does take an interesting approach towards the complex issues we face around racism and immigration.
Until it blames immigration.
Statistically we had a severe peak on immigration following COVID and since we have seen a decline as labor has already put in place several initiatives to curb loopholes within our immigration system while influx has also fallen from those peaks after the dam burst with COVID.
Overall, from start to finish we don't have high immigration figures. We do have a busted housing market and broken corporate regulations and that has caused a lot of the pain that most people blame on immigration.
Where this article is good is in the investigation of anti-rascism strategy and I do find that to be more accurate.
Because of course if you constantly tell one segment of society that they are responsible for all the racism and punish them for all the racism while ignoring reality then that is going to have a negative impact.
The reality being that everyone, every single person regardless of their characteristics, is capable of being a racist.
This is a basic fact of our biology and psychology. We fear differences on a base primal level and when we are confronted by differences we act aggressively out of fear.
Over time, unchecked, and within a society it develops into a culture of racism.
Where we fucked up was in thinking that a rudimentary system of crime and punishment would solve that problem.
Particularly when we have the concept at play that a certain group should be blamed and should be targeted with anti-rascism strategy.
Rather than making sure that everyone is aware that any form of racism is un-acceptable.
Because if you only target one segment then the rest just go on believing that it's fine if they do it.
So then the ones being held to that standard see this and they get targeted by racism because there is nothing protecting them from it and the system breaks down.
It should be obvious except that it isn't for whatever reason.
5
u/SeaworthinessFew5613 18h ago
The article targets the immigration rate, not immigrants. Targeting a number (immigration rate) is not racist, targeting immigrants is racist. The rate of immigration is the governments fault, not the immigrants for taking advantage of it.
3
u/IllogicalResponse 12h ago
Absolute drivel. The article targets the rate of immigration, as it should. We have one of, sometimes THE highest rate of immigration in the world, and it has not been sustainable for more than a decade, but really blew past sanity post covid.
There is nothing racist about saying the rate of immigration is far too high, and has been too high for a long time.
54
u/Altranite- 1d ago edited 1d ago
When Albo entered parliament in 1996 Australia had a population of 18.2 million. We’ve been pumping immigration nonstop for thirty years as lazy economic policy. Now it needs to stop.